EN BANC Supervisors/Consultants was composed of Provincial Government
Operation Officer (PGOO) Alberto P. Molina, Jr. as Chairman with
G.R. No. 90336 August 12, 1991
RUPERTO TAULE, petitioner,
vs.
SECRETARY LUIS T. SANTOS and GOVERNOR LEANDRO
VERCELES, respondents.
Balgos & Perez and Bugaring, Tugonon & Associates Law Offices for
petitioner.
Juan G. Atencia for private respondent.
GANCAYCO, J.:
The extent of authority of the Secretary of Local Government over
the katipunan ng mga barangay or the barangay councils is brought to
the fore in this case.
On June 18,1989, the Federation of Associations of Barangay Councils
(FABC) of Catanduanes, composed of eleven (11) members, in their
capacities as Presidents of the Association of Barangay Councils in
their respective municipalities, convened in Virac, Catanduanes with
six members in attendance for the purpose of holding the election of its
officers.
Present were petitioner Ruperto Taule of San Miguel, Allan Aquino of
Viga, Vicente Avila of Virac, Fidel Jacob of Panganiban, Leo Sales of
Caramoran and Manuel Torres of Baras. The Board of Election
Provincial Treasurer Luis A. Manlapaz, Jr. and Provincial Election
Supervisor Arnold Soquerata as members.
When the group decided to hold the election despite the absence of
five (5) of its members, the Provincial Treasurer and the Provincial
Election Supervisor walked out.
The election nevertheless proceeded with PGOO Alberto P. Molina, Jr.
as presiding officer. Chosen as members of the Board of Directors
were Taule, Aquino, Avila, Jacob and Sales.
Thereafter, the following were elected officers of the FABC:
President — Ruperto Taule
Vice-President — Allan Aquino
Secretary — Vicente Avila
Treasurer — Fidel Jacob
Auditor — Leo Sales1
On June 19, 1989, respondent Leandro I. Verceles, Governor of
Catanduanes, sent a letter to respondent Luis T. Santos, the Secretary
of Local Government, * protesting the election of the officers of the
FABC and seeking its nullification in view of several flagrant
irregularities in the manner it was conducted.2
In compliance with the order of respondent Secretary, petitioner
Ruperto Taule as President of the FABC, filed his comment on the
letter-protest of respondent Governor denying the alleged irregularities
and denouncing said respondent Governor for meddling or intervening
in the election of FABC officers which is a purely non-partisan affair
and at the same time requesting for his appointment as a member of
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the province being the duly elected
President of the FABC in Catanduanes.3
On August 4, 1989, respondent Secretary issued a resolution nullifying
the election of the officers of the FABC in Catanduanes held on June
18, 1989 and ordering a new one to be conducted as early as possible
to be presided by the Regional Director of Region V of the Department
of Local Government.4
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of August
4, 1989 but it was denied by respondent Secretary in his resolution of
September 5, 1989.5
In the petition for certiorari before Us, petitioner seeks the reversal of
the resolutions of respondent Secretary dated August 4, 1989 and
September 5, 1989 for being null and void.
Petitioner raises the following issues:
1) Whether or not the respondent Secretary has jurisdiction to entertain
an election protest involving the election of the officers of the
Federation of Association of Barangay Councils;
2) Whether or not the respondent Governor has the legal personality to
file an election protest;
3) Assuming that the respondent Secretary has jurisdiction over the
election protest, whether or not he committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in nullifying the election;
The Katipunan ng mga Barangay is the organization of all sangguniang
barangays in the following levels: in municipalities to be known
as katipunang bayan; in cities, katipunang panlungsod; in
provinces, katipunang panlalawigan; in regions, katipunang pampook;
and on the national level, katipunan ng mga barangay.6
The Local Government Code provides for the manner in which
the katipunan ng mga barangay at all levels shall be organized:
Sec. 110. Organization. — (1) The katipunan at all levels shall
be organized in the following manner:
(a) The katipunan in each level shall elect a board of directors
and a set of officers. The president of each level shall
represent the katipunan concerned in the next higher level of
organization.
(b) The katipunan ng mga barangay shall be composed of the
katipunang pampook, which shall in turn be composed of the
presidents of the katipunang panlalawigan and the katipunang
panlungsod. The presidents of the katipunang bayan in each
province shall constitute the katipunang panlalawigan. The
katipunang panlungsod and the katipunang bayan shall be
composed of the punong barangays of cities and
municipalities, respectively.
xxx xxx xxx
The respondent Secretary, acting in accordance with the provision of
the Local Government Code empowering him to "promulgate in detail
the implementing circulars and the rules and regulations to carry out
the various administrative actions required for the initial implementation
of this Code in such a manner as will ensure the least disruption of on-
going programs and projects7 issued Department of Local Government
Circular No. 89-09 on April 7, 1989,8 to provide the guidelines for the
conduct of the elections of officers of the Katipunan ng mga
Barangay at the municipal, city, provincial, regional and national levels.
It is now the contention of petitioner that neither the constitution nor the
law grants jurisdiction upon the respondent Secretary over election
contests involving the election of officers of the FABC, the katipunan
ng mga barangay at the provincial level. It is petitioner's theory that
under Article IX, C, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, it is the
Commission on Elections which has jurisdiction over all contests
involving elective barangay officials.
On the other hand, it is the opinion of the respondent Secretary that
any violation of the guidelines as set forth in said circular would be a
ground for filing a protest and would vest upon the Department
jurisdiction to resolve any protest that may be filed in relation thereto.
Under Article IX, C, Section 2(2) of the 1987 Constitution, the
Commission on Elections shall exercise "exclusive original jurisdiction
over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of
all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate
jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials
decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective
barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction." The
1987 Constitution expanded the jurisdiction of the COMELEC by
granting it appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective
municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction or
elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.9
The jurisdiction of the COMELEC over contests involving elective
barangay officials is limited to appellate jurisdiction from decisions of
the trial courts. Under the law,10 the sworn petition contesting the
election of a barangay officer shall be filed with the proper Municipal or
Metropolitan Trial Court by any candidate who has duly filed a
certificate of candidacy and has been voted for the same office within
10 days after the proclamation of the results. A voter may also contest
the election of any barangay officer on the ground of ineligibility or of
disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines by filing a sworn petition
for quo warranto with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court within
10 days after the proclamation of the results of the election.11 Only
appeals from decisions of inferior courts on election matters as
aforestated may be decided by the COMELEC.
The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that the jurisdiction of the
COMELEC is over popular elections, the elected officials of which are
determined through the will of the electorate. An election is the
embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the sovereign power
of the people.12 It involves the choice or selection of candidates to
public office by popular vote.13 Specifically, the term "election," in the
context of the Constitution, may refer to the conduct of the polls,
including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral campaign,
and the casting and counting of the votes14 which do not characterize
the election of officers in the Katipunan ng mga barangay. "Election
contests" would refer to adversary proceedings by which matters
involving the title or claim of title to an elective office, made before or
after proclamation of the winner, is settled whether or not the
contestant is claiming the office in dispute15 and in the case of elections
of barangay officials, it is restricted to proceedings after the
proclamation of the winners as no pre-proclamation controversies are
allowed.16
The jurisdiction of the COMELEC does not cover protests over the
organizational set-up of the katipunan ng mga barangay composed of
popularly elected punong barangays as prescribed by law whose
officers are voted upon by their respective members. The COMELEC
exercises only appellate jurisdiction over election contests involving
elective barangay officials decided by the Metropolitan or Municipal
Trial Courts which likewise have limited jurisdiction. The authority of
the COMELEC over the katipunan ng mga barangay is limited by law
to supervision of the election of the representative of
the katipunan concerned to the sanggunian in a particular level
conducted by their own respective organization.17
However, the Secretary of Local Government is not vested with
jurisdiction to entertain any protest involving the election of officers of
the FABC.
There is no question that he is vested with the power to promulgate
rules and regulations as set forth in Section 222 of the Local
Government Code.
Likewise, under Book IV, Title XII, Chapter 1, See. 3(2) of the
Administrative Code of 1987, ** the respondent Secretary has the power
to "establish and prescribe rules, regulations and other issuances and
implementing laws on the general supervision of local government
units and on the promotion of local autonomy and monitor compliance
thereof by said units."
Also, the respondent Secretary's rule making power is provided in See.
7, Chapter II, Book IV of the Administrative Code, to wit:
(3) Promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry out
department objectives, policies, functions, plans, programs and
projects;
Thus, DLG Circular No. 89-09 was issued by respondent Secretary in
pursuance of his rule-making power conferred by law and which now
has the force and effect of law.18
Now the question that arises is whether or not a violation of said
circular vests jurisdiction upon the respondent Secretary, as claimed by
him, to hear a protest filed in relation thereto and consequently declare
an election null and void.
It is a well-settled principle of administrative law that unless expressly
empowered, administrative agencies are bereft of quasi- judicial
powers.19 The jurisdiction of administrative authorities is dependent
entirely upon the provisions of the statutes reposing power in them;
they cannot confer it upon themselves.20 Such jurisdiction is essential to
give validity to their determinations.21
There is neither a statutory nor constitutional provision expressly or
even by necessary implication conferring upon the Secretary of Local
Government the power to assume jurisdiction over an election protect
involving officers of the katipunan ng mga barangay. An understanding
of the extent of authority of the Secretary over local governments is
therefore necessary if We are to resolve the issue at hand.
Presidential power over local governments is limited by the
Constitution to the exercise of general supervision22 "to ensure that
local affairs are administered according to law."23 The general
supervision is exercised by the President through the Secretary of
Local Government.24
In administrative law, supervision means overseeing or the power or
authority of an officer to see that the subordinate officers perform their
duties. If the latter fails or neglects to fulfill them the former may take
such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their
duties. Control, on the other hand, means the power of an officer to
alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had
done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of
the former for that of the latter. The fundamental law permits the Chief
Executive to wield no more authority than that of checking whether said
local government or the officers thereof perform their duties as
provided by statutory enactments. Hence, the President cannot
interfere with local governments so long as the same or its officers act
within the scope of their authority.25 Supervisory power, when
contrasted with control, is the power of mere oversight over an inferior
body; it does not include any restraining authority over such body.26
Construing the constitutional limitation on the power of general
supervision of the President over local governments, We hold that
respondent Secretary has no authority to pass upon the validity or
regularity of the election of the officers of the katipunan. To allow
respondent Secretary to do so will give him more power than the law or
the Constitution grants. It will in effect give him control over local
government officials for it will permit him to interfere in a purely
democratic and non-partisan activity aimed at strengthening the
barangay as the basic component of local governments so that the
ultimate goal of fullest autonomy may be achieved. In fact, his order
that the new elections to be conducted be presided by the Regional
Director is a clear and direct interference by the Department with the
political affairs of the barangays which is not permitted by the limitation
of presidential power to general supervision over local governments.27
Indeed, it is the policy of the state to ensure the autonomy of local
governments.28 This state policy is echoed in the Local Government
Code wherein it is declared that "the State shall guarantee and
promote the autonomy of local government units to ensure their fullest
development as self-reliant communities and make them more
effective partners in the pursuit of national development and social
progress."29 To deny the Secretary of Local Government the power to
review the regularity of the elections of officers of the katipunan would
be to enhance the avowed state policy of promoting the autonomy of
local governments.
Moreover, although the Department is given the power to prescribe
rules, regulations and other issuances, the Administrative Code limits
its authority to merely "monitoring compliance" by local government
units of such issuances.30 To monitor means "to watch, observe or
check.31 This is compatible with the power of supervision of the
Secretary over local governments which as earlier discussed is limited
to checking whether the local government unit concerned or the
officers thereof perform their duties as provided by statutory
enactments. Even the Local Government Code which grants the
Secretary power to issue implementing circulars, rules and regulations
is silent as to how these issuances should be enforced. Since the
respondent Secretary exercises only supervision and not control over
local governments, it is truly doubtful if he could enforce compliance
with the DLG Circular.32 Any doubt therefore as to the power of the
Secretary to interfere with local affairs should be resolved in favor of
the greater autonomy of the local government.
Thus, the Court holds that in assuming jurisdiction over the election
protest filed by respondent Governor and declaring the election of the
officers of the FABC on June 18, 1989 as null and void, the respondent
Secretary acted in excess of his jurisdiction. The respondent Secretary
not having the jurisdiction to hear an election protest involving officers
of the FABC, the recourse of the parties is to the ordinary courts. The
Regional Trial Courts have the exclusive original jurisdiction to hear the
protest.33
The provision in DLG Circular No. 89-15 amending DLG Circular No.
89-09 which states that "whenever the guidelines are not substantially
complied with, the election shall be declared null and void by the
Department of Local Government and an election shall conduct and
being invoked by the Solicitor General cannot be applied. DLG Circular
No. 89-15 was issued on July 3, 1989 after the June 18, 1989 elections
of the FABC officers and it is the rule in statutory construction that
laws, including circulars and regulations34 cannot be applied
retrospectively.35Moreover, such provision is null and void for having
been issued in excess of the respondent Secretary's jurisdiction,
inasmuch as an administrative authority cannot confer jurisdiction upon
itself.
As regards the second issue raised by petitioner, the Court finds that
respondent Governor has the personality to file the protest. Under
Section 205 of the Local Government Code, the membership of
the sangguniang panlalawiganconsists of the governor, the vice-
governor, elective members of the said sanggunian and the presidents
of the katipunang panlalawigan and the kabataang barangay provincial
federation. The governor acts as the presiding officer of
the sangguniang panlalawigan.36
As presiding officer of the sagguniang panlalawigan, the respondent
governor has an interest in the election of the officers of the FABC
since its elected president becomes a member of the assembly. If the
president of the FABC assumes his presidency under questionable
circumstances and is allowed to sit in the sangguniang
panlalawiganthe official actions of the sanggunian may be vulnerable
to attacks as to their validity or legality. Hence, respondent governor is
a proper party to question the regularity of the elections of the officers
of the FABC.
As to the third issue raised by petitioner, the Court has already ruled
that the respondent Secretary has no jurisdiction to hear the protest
and nullify the elections.
Nevertheless, the Court holds that the issue of the validity of the
elections should now be resolved in order to prevent any unnecessary
delay that may result from the commencement of an appropriate action
by the parties.
The elections were declared null and void primarily for failure to comply
with Section 2.4 of DLG Circular No. 89-09 which provides that "the
incumbent FABC President or the Vice-President shall preside over the
reorganizational meeting, there being a quorum." The rule specifically
provides that it is the incumbent FABC President or Vice-President
who shall preside over the meeting. The word "shall" should be taken
in its ordinary signification, i.e., it must be imperative or mandatory and
not merely
permissive,37 as the rule is explicit and requires no other interpretation.
If it had been intended that any other official should preside, the rules
would have provided so, as it did in the elections at the town and city
levels38 as well as the regional level..39
It is admitted that neither the incumbent FABC President nor the Vice-
President presided over the meeting and elections but Alberto P.
Molina, Jr., the Chairman of the Board of Election
Supervisors/Consultants. Thus, there was a clear violation of the
aforesaid mandatory provision. On this ground, the elections should be
nullified.
Under Sec. 2.3.2.7 of the same circular it is provided that a Board of
Election Supervisors/Consultants shall be constituted to oversee
and/or witness the canvassing of votes and proclamation of winners.
The rules confine the role of the Board of Election
Supervisors/Consultants to merely overseeing and witnessing the
conduct of elections. This is consistent with the provision in the Local
Government Code limiting the authority of the COMELEC to the
supervision of the election.40
In case at bar, PGOO Molina, the Chairman of the Board, presided
over the elections. There was direct participation by the Chairman of
the Board in the elections contrary to what is dictated by the rules.
Worse, there was no Board of Election Supervisors to oversee the
elections in view of the walk out staged by its two other members, the
Provincial COMELEC Supervisor and the Provincial Treasurer. The
objective of keeping the election free and honest was therefore
compromised.
The Court therefore finds that the election of officers of the FABC held
on June 18, 1989 is null and void for failure to comply with the
provisions of DLG Circular No. 89-09.
Meanwhile, pending resolution of this petition, petitioner filed a
supplemental petition alleging that public respondent Local
Government Secretary, in his memorandum dated June 7, 1990,
designated Augusto Antonio as temporary representative of the
Federation to the sangguniang panlalawigan of Catanduanes.41 By
virtue of this memorandum, respondent governor swore into said office
Augusto Antonio on June 14, 1990.42
The Solicitor General filed his comment on the supplemental
petition43 as required by the resolution of the Court dated September
13,1990.
In his comment, the Solicitor General dismissed the supervening event
alleged by petitioner as something immaterial to the petition. He argues
that Antonio's appointment was merely temporary "until such time that
the provincial FABC president in that province has been elected,
appointed and qualified."44 He stresses that Antonio's appointment was
only a remedial measure designed to cope with the problems brought
about by the absence of a representative of the FABC to the
"sanggunian ang panlalawigan."
Sec. 205 (2) of the Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337) provides-
(2) The sangguniang panlalawigan shall be composed of the
governor, the vice-governor, elective members of the said
sanggunian and the presidents of the katipunang
panlalawigan and the kabataang barangay provincial federation
who shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Batas Pambansa Blg. 51, under Sec. 2 likewise states:
xxx xxx xxx
The sangguniang panlalawigan of each province shall be
composed of the governor as chairman and presiding officer,
the vice-governor as presiding officer pro tempore, the elective
sangguniang panlalawigan members, and the appointive
members consisting of the president of the provincial
association of barangay councils, and the president of the
provincial federation of the kabataang barangay. (Emphasis
supplied.)
In Ignacio vs. Banate Jr.45 the Court, interpreting similarly worded
provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 51
on the composition of the sangguniang panlungsod,46 declared as null
and void the appointment of private respondent Leoncio Banate Jr. as
member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Roxas
representing the katipunang panlungsod ng mga barangay for he
lacked the elegibility and qualification required by law, not being a
barangay captain and for not having been elected president of the
association of barangay councils. The Court held that an unqualified
person cannot be appointed a member of the sanggunian, even in an
acting capacity. In Reyes vs. Ferrer,47 the appointment of Nemesio L.
Rasgo Jr. as representative of the youth sector to the sangguniang
panlungsod of Davao City was declared invalid since he was never the
president of the kabataang barangay city federation as required by
Sec. 173, Batas Pambansa Blg. 337.
In the present controversy involving the sangguniang panlalawigan, the
law is likewise explicit. To be appointed by the President of the
Philippines to sit in the sangguniang panlalawigan is the president of
the katipunang panlalawigan. The appointee must meet the
qualifications set by law.48 The appointing power is bound by law to
comply with the requirements as to the basic qualifications of the
appointee to the sangguniang panlalawigan. The President of the
Philippines or his alter ego, the Secretary of Local Government, has no
authority to appoint anyone who does not meet the minimum
qualification to be the president of the federation of barangay councils.
Augusto Antonio is not the president of the federation. He is a member
of the federation but he was not even present during the elections
despite notice. The argument that Antonio was appointed as a
remedial measure in the exigency of the service cannot be sustained.
Since Antonio does not meet the basic qualification of being president
of the federation, his appointment to the sangguniang panlalawigan is
not justified notwithstanding that such appointment is merely in a
temporary capacity. If the intention of the respondent Secretary was to
protect the interest of the federation in the sanggunian, he should have
appointed the incumbent FABC President in a hold-over capacity. For
even under the guidelines, the term of office of officers of
the katipunan at all levels shall be from the date of their election until
their successors shall have been duly elected and qualified, without
prejudice to the terms of their appointments as members of the
sanggunian to which they may be correspondingly appointed.49 Since
the election is still under protest such that no successor of the
incumbent has as yet qualified, the respondent Secretary has no
choice but to have the incumbent FABC President sit as member of
the sanggunian. He could even have appointed petitioner since he was
elected the president of the federation but not Antonio. The
appointment of Antonio, allegedly the protege of respondent Governor,
gives credence to petitioner's charge of political interference by
respondent Governor in the organization. This should not be allowed.
The barangays should be insulated from any partisan activity or
political intervention if only to give true meaning to local autonomy.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED in that the resolution of
respondent Secretary dated August 4, 1989 is hereby SET ASIDE for
having been issued in excess of jurisdiction.
The election of the officials of the ABC Federation held on June 18,
1989 is hereby annulled. A new election of officers of the federation is
1âwphi 1
hereby ordered to be conducted immediately in accordance with the
governing rules and regulations.
The Supplemental petition is hereby GRANTED. The appointment of
Augusto Antonio as representative to the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan in a temporary capacity is declared null and void.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
TAULE vs. SANTOS August 12, 1991G. R. No. 90336
This is a petition for certiorari seeking the reversal of the resolutions of
respondent Secretary dated August 4, 1989 and September 5, 1989 for
being null and void.
Facts:
An election for the officers of the Federation of Associations of Barangay
Council (FABC) was held on June 18, 1989 despite the absence of other
members of the said council. Including Petitioner was elected as the
president. Respondent Verceles sent a letter of protest to respondent
Santos, seeking its nullification in view of several flagrant irregularities in
the manner it was conducted. Petitioner denied the allegations of
respondent Verceles and denouncing respondent for intervening in the
said election which is a purely non-partisan affair. And requesting for his
appointment as a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the
province being the duly elected President of the FABC in Catanduanes.
Respondent Santos issued a resolution on August 4, 1989 nullifying the
election and ordering a new one to be conducted as early as possible to
be presided by the Regional Director of Region V of the Department of
Local Government. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it
was denied by respondent Santos in his resolution on September 5,
1989.Thus this petition before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
1)WON the respondent Santos has jurisdiction to entertain an election
protest involving the election of the officers of the FABC.
2)WON the respondent Verceles has the legal personality to file an
election protest.
Decision:
Petition GRANTED. Assailed August 4, 1989 and September 5, 1989
resolution is SET ASIDE for having been issued in excess of jurisdiction.
However, the election on June 18, 1989 is annulled. A new election of
officers of the FABC be conducted immediately in accordance with the
governing rules and regulations. Supplemental petition is
likewise partially granted
Ratio Decidendi:
1. No. The Secretary of Local Government has no jurisdiction to entertain
any protest involving the election of officers of the FABC. He is only vested
with the power to promulgate rules and regulations and to exercise general
supervision over the local government as provided in the Local Government
Code and in the Administrative Code.
It is the exclusive original jurisdiction of the inferior to hear election protest
and the COMELEC have the appellate jurisdiction over it.

2) Yes. The Governor has the personality to file the protest. Under Section
205 of the Local Government Code, the membership of the sangguniang
panlalawigan consists of the governor, the vice-governor, elective members
of the said sanggunian, etc. He acted as the presiding officer of the
sangguniang panlalawigan. As presiding officer, he has an interest in the
election of the officers of the FABC since its elected president becomes a
member of the assembly. If said member assumes his place under
questionable circumstances, the sanggunian may be vulnerable to attacks as
to their validity or legality. Therefore, respondent governor is a proper party
to question the regularity of the elections of the officers of the FABC.
The election of officers of the FABC held on June 18, 1989 is null and void
for not complying with the provisions of DLG Circular No. 89-09.

DLG Circular No. 89-09 provides that "the incumbent FABC President or the
Vice-President shall preside over the reorganizational meeting, there being a
quorum." It is admitted that neither the incumbent FABC President nor the
Vice-President presided over the meeting and elections but Alberto P.
Molina, Jr., the Chairman of the Board of Election Supervisors/Consultants.
Therefore, there was a clear violation of the said mandatory provision.

• Pending resolution, petitioner also filed a supplemental petition alleging

that public respondent Local Government Secretary, in his memorandum
dated June 7, 1990, designated Augusto Antonio, despite him being absent
on said election. The Secretary of Local Government has no authority to
appoint anyone who does not meet the minimum qualification to be the
president of the federation of barangay councils.